User talk:Tony1/Archive10

Hindu-German Conspiracy
Hello Tony. First of all, a lot of thanks for your comments in the Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC which unfortunately did  not work out. However, I worked through article quite a lot today, taking into account the comments in the page, and think I have done a (half-)decent job editing it. Do you reckon you will have time to look at the article in the future and give me some more comments on where it might fall short on an FAC. I gathered language was the main (if not only) problem that stopped it from getting promoted. I plan to renominate it sometime soon. RegardsRueben lys (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Review request
Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan passed FAC last month with a poor quality review there. I have concerns about 1(a) and my attempts to get it looked at have been stonewalled. I know there is some flawed writing such as "...the cyclone intensified to tropical storm status early on September 23, based on Hurricane Hunter reports", but I don't really have the skill required to go through it properly. Therefore I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at it and either post a review to its talk page or just copyedit it directly. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are at least four means of dealing with this editor's concerns about that article: discussion 1) at the article talk page, 2) with the editor who nominated it at FAC, and 3) at the relevant WikiProject, or 4) edit it himself.  Nilfanion's contribs shows he has availed himself of none of these opportunities.  One of the many reasons that FAR doesn't second guess FAC is that the time lag allows time for issues to be resolved through normal processes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't account for off-wiki communication. Another method is to request an outside opinion from another editor - which is what I made the post to Tony for. Tony, your choice, but I'd appreciate you looking it over.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Vasa (ship) at FAC
Since you've shown interest or made some contributions to Vasa (ship), I'd like to notify you that it has been nominated as an FAC. Your insights and comments would be much appreciated there.

Peter Isotalo 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture
Hi Tony. In the above FAC, I do not understand what this means-->"small- star" errant space. I have fixed the other issues you brought up. thanks for your time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham
Tony, can you please revisit Featured article candidates/Altrincham? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Belarus
This article, which been through a 2 month FAC nightmare, was recently copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Do you feel it is ready for FAC again? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

St Kilda
Hi Tony - you will perhaps be dismayed to hear that another Scottish island is nearly on its way to the FAC room. It has been copy edited, but I am concerned about one fairly brief section St Kilda, Scotland. I am not sure I have quite grokked the 'words as words' protocols and the combination of this usage with Gaelic language words has led to phrases like " …it is a combination of the Gaelic and Old Norse words for 'well', i.e. 'well well') " & " the islanders pronounced the 'H' with a "somewhat guttural quality" making the sound they used for Hirta "almost" Kilta " that have had me pausing over the apostrophe button in a catatonic state for hours at a time. If you would have a quick read through and let me know of any howlers I'd be grateful. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Many thanks for your assistance with this. The article has finally passed the FA muster. I made one or two rather testy remarks about this op cit business at the FAC and time permitting I shall ask MOS to be more specific. I notice you have had various things to say on other MOS matters that are of interest to me of late (the 'on' word, UK metric/imperial etc.) I am sure wiser heads than mine have looked into all this, but it strikes me as dysfunctional at best that MOS can say quite conflicting things on different pages because of the complexities of reaching consensus on two or more fronts. As a result I suspect that FACs are much more complex than they need to be as there is, in effect, no straightforward way of resolving the issues raised. Has anyone ever suggested a MOS committee of some kind to adjudicate? ( I hasten to add that I am neither qualified nor interested in such a position, but I'd rather have a clear result to work to, even if was not my ideal solution, than the current guddle). Regards. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  14:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Major, certainly. Important also. I am not knowledgeable enough to do much more than propose or provide some persistent support for such an idea, but if any serious attempt should come to your attention I'd be happy to do so. Have a good Hogmanay. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  10:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wormshill
Hi, thanks for stopping by the FAC. In a day or so, could I ask you to give it another flypast? Am keen to address any 'oppose' issues and would like to hear if you have any further comments. I'm afraid the copyed got a bit 'hot under the collar' about some of your comments, hope that doesn't colour any subsequent review. Cheers Dick G (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gees, I guess it did wind you up. Rest assured I am addressing your issues in good faith. If you have specific ongoing concerns with the article (or indeed my editing) I am still interested to hear what you have to say, regardless of the depths the FAC has now sunk to. Dick G (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, as you are no doubt aware the above FAC has been rebooted by Raul. As a small amount of new content has gone in and a few editors have passed by since you last commented, I should be grateful if you would take one last look - not least since you have a keener (and faster) eye than most for MOS breaches and funky prose. Thanks in anticipation Dick G (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis Harvey
Just checking; I think you meant to strike at Featured article candidates? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Internationalist (album)
Hey there Tony. I've responded to most of your comments at Featured article candidates/Internationalist (album), and have questioned a few that I'm not sure on. Thanks heaps for reviewing the article so far - if you could possibly take another look at the FAC and possibly clarify on areas where I'm a bit confused, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The FAC was successful - thanks heaps for your help. I answered your last comment there, if you want to keep discussing the matter I'd be delighted too :) &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just look at your cellphone.
Intercoursing ridiculous! -- Hoary (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)



Caulfield Grammar School
Hello. Earlier this year you voted to demote this article from featured status. I have recently been working to improve it and re-nominate it as an FAC. Please take some time to review the article's current form, as any feedback for further changes would be greatly appreciated. Harr o 5 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1988 Atlantic hurricane season FAC
As suggested by User:SandyGeorgia could you please check that your points brought up on the FAC have been met, many thanks Seddon69 (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved?
Just wondering if User talk:SMcCandlish remains an open issue/discussion/thing. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Plied again over there. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 17:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrid green checkmarks
They make trying to sort out commentary unnecessarily time consuming, and renders the original reviewer's commentary unintelligible gibberish. But I really don't want to rock that boat just yet; perhaps this miserable ✅ practice of ❌ peppering text ✅ and making the original ❌ commentary practically unintelligible ✅ will slowly disappear ❌ if I make mention ✅ of the problem ❌ here and there. I'm more concerned about the unactionable opposes right now and other issues which contribute to the backlog, and I'd rather tackle that more pressing issue. And I'll be slow tackling anything until I make the transition to this Stupid GawdAwful TouchPad on my new computer. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis Harvey
Thankyou for your contribution towards the FAC for the above article, it has now passed. Your attention here was gratefully recieved. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Vampire sentence....
Just one sentence has nearly derailed things and veered unhealthily toward an edit war. I'm torn on this one but thought you may want to have a laugh...and see what you thought:

here.

cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I have tried to minimise the in-universe feel of it and found some great books on psychodynamic and cultural origins of the folklore which we've have tried to incorporate into it...(I saw you hate supernatural religions..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's supernatural religions as in ... religion. Tony   (talk)  13:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Supernatural religion"? Dear me, Tony, I never thought I'd see the day when you would have a redundant word on your user page!  Pagra shtak  15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right to point it out. In this case, the need to "frame" religion by adding what on the surface is a redundant epithet reminds that what to some people is part of the modern-day mainstream establishment in the west and elsewhere relies every bit as much on belief in the supernatural as does Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In other words, religion is a set of preposterous medieval deceptions that still infect our belief systems and hold extraordinary sway over much of the world's population—including some of the very same people who would scoff at the idea that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is based on truth rather than idle fantasy. The difference is that while Buffy's deception concerns the ad breaks that are its raison d'etre (since no one is expected to believe the premise of the fantasy of the program), medievalist religion constructs itself directly as a truth; whether people believe the patently ridiculous notions of an afterlife, heaven and hell, and divine justice, or whether they merely pay lip service to the institution out of sheer intellectual or psychological laziness, inertia, or idiocy, it is we who allow religion to kill millions and to significantly diminish the lives of more. It is a blight on humanity, and one of the great con-jobs perpetrated upon us ever since the days when males in hominoid groups pretended to have special powers, doing so to gain reproductive advantage.
 * The redundancy, on the linguistic surface, has an imperative on other levels. Tony   (talk)  16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus
Hi, Tony, would you have time to read this short article? I would value your opinion. Best wishes --Graham Colm Talk 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help Tony, very much appreciated, Graham.--Graham Colm Talk 13:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate
Hi Tony, the article Lead(II) nitrate was recently demoted from FA, for reasons pointed out in a FA review of its quality. The status of the review was misunderstood, and recommendations were unfortunately unhandled. One of the recommendations for improvement was yours. I have now taken up the challenge and adjusted the article in line with the recommendations, with the intention to bring it back up to spec. Would you please be so kind as to give it a look again, and provide some feedback about the article's current state? Your suggestions will be highly appreciated, both for the article and my personal education! Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks. VERY helpful! (and humbling to see that I have left so many opportunities for improvement unused.)  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

747
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_747

Thanks for your comments. I'm trying to improve the article not argue with you. After discussion with SandyGeorgia, it was suggested that I contact you and see if your concerns for FA have been addressed. If so, please change your "oppose" conclusion. Fnlayson and I, as well as others, have done a lot of fixing since your comments. Your change of heart regarding FA is essential. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the oppose. You can be sure I'll continually try to improve it. Archtransit (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Tony, thanks for your note. I'm keeping a close eye on it. Looking at the histories (and I've not looked at everything yet), I'm hoping this was just a series of misunderstandings and personality clashes that escalated because everyone was upset. If it was more than that, that will show itself over time, and I'll deal with it at that point. But I hope in the meantime everyone will try to AGF and help to turn the heat down. In that spirit, I've asked Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia to try to avoid each other, and not respond to posts about the other one. Hopefully that will go some way to calming things down. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The convert template
You said: "Oh, that damned convert template: I'd support it if it could convert every instance logically and consistently with MOS: it can't, and it's just as much work, in other ways, as doing it manually."

I agree that the convert template is not fast on its own. But the template is very compatible with script tools (such as wp:AWB or my unit and/or date script). I am sure that this is a major factor in the popularity of the template. I have not done a speed test but I suspect that my script can add conversions to articles at a rate that is an order of magnitude faster than a manual method.

I agree that it does not support all instances of units but the only one that I can think of is ranges. If you have other instances in mind, I would like to know. Certainly, the majority of instances are single unit (e.g. "97 ft") and it converts those exactly as I expect.

As a principle, I prefer the edit mode of articles to contain raw text rather than templates. If I knew of a simple and fast way to add raw text conversions rather than template conversions, I would consider modifying my script to do it. There are many people that support the addition of metric units but manual methods have only ever had a small effect on the prevalence of unconverted non-metric units. Script/template combinations have had a much bigger effect. As with 'monkey see, monkey do' copycat effect of year linking or not-linking, I now believe that some non-metric editors add metric conversions where they would not have done in the past.

In summary, I think the template is a 'good thing' rather than a thing to be damned. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Date ranges
Please look at the history of Manual of Style. I do not understand what is going on following your edit. Can you take a look at the edit summaries and the edits please? Lightmouse (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Crossposted from MOS Talk
Punctuation, particularly in the US, was standardized quite recently (i.e. the last 150 years) and mandatory use of the serial comma arose as a consquence of foolish consistency more than the accurate notation of spoken language, the Oxford style manual not withstanding.

As a reference work Wikipedia must evenhandedly put forth the opposing positions, but in its own recommnded usage may do as it (i.e. its Wikipedians) prefer, and the ultimate test is ambiguity and lack thereof.

Further, en.wikipedia.org is the English language Wikipedia, not Wiki USA, and should reflect worldwide use, which runs against the serial comma. Proposed, then, to use a serial comma when doing so eliminates ambiguity and not when it does not.

NB I am advocating not using the serial comma under most circumstances; in many cases it makes no difference whether it's there or not, and I say, "When in doubt, leave it out!" Robert Greer (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with Robertgreer's proposal: there are already quite enough functional commas in formal written registers, and redundant Oxford commas are easy to dispense with on a number of grounds. If I had a magic wand, I'd write it in. But I think too many people will object. The way it's written now makes it optional: "There is no Wikipedia consensus on whether to use the serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma), except where including or omitting such comma clarifies the meaning". (BTW, I've just slightly tweaked that text in MOS to remove the fluff and an unnecessary emphasis on the rarity of the need to clarify the meaning.) I remove them where they're idle in text I edit. Tony   (talk)  00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the flip side of French spacing. Punctuation (and spacing) arose to make that which was committed to paper reflect more clearer the words being transcribed (the classical Greek texts did not indicate the end of a sentence.) But I've given up on convincing anybody hereabouts of anything. I write mainly about ballet (neo-classical and contemproary), a little about modern dance, and it's an uphill battle against ignoramuses whose idea of dance begins and ends with Paula Abdul questioning the notability of pages about New York City Ballet; exhibit (a) a Wikipedian whose magnum opus is an article about his high school band director; exhibit (b) another who writes on the Tchaikovsky talk page, "Who cares about Petipa?", and this during Nutcracker season! Robert Greer (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Gilbert (chemist)
About your WP:AIV report, instead of blocking the IPs, I've semi-protected the page for a month. The protection is a bit longer than normal because of the large gaps between vandalism. Hopefully the person will lose interest. A fellow Australian doesn't like him very much as almost all of the edits are using the iiNet service. However, two of the edits were made from a computer at the University of Canberra. Academic rivalry perhaps? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re your message: You're welcome. It's not that difficult to trace the location of anonymous vandals.  There's links to determine their address right on anonymous IPs' Talk page (though I did look it up by hand).  Should the vandal return after the protection has expired, please feel free to contact me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?
Hi, Tony I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. Last time around, you contributed to the voting process, and this time you contributed worthwhile recommendation in the pre-process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy?  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Sid Barnes
Hi Tony. You may remember a while ago you provided very useful feedback on an article I nominated for Featured Article status, Riverina. I have collaborated on another article, Sid Barnes, that is now at FAC and would appreciate your comments. If you are not a cricket aficionado, all the better. We are trying to ensure the article is intelligible to people with no interest in the sport. If you can spare the time to leave your thoughts on how the article could be improved at Featured article candidates/Sid Barnes it would certainly be appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. How would you like the ellipsis dots spaced? If you fix one, I'll copy the formatting. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. What about where the ellipsis is the opening of a quote? --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done? --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season
  'TIS MANGO SEASON.... Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do partake, myself. Best done over the sink. Tony   (talk)  05:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * And chestnuts (wattle) roasting by the open fire from me, too! -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tick bloody tock mate!
Eats shoots and heaves? Well, bleurgh! (A book ably dismissed by David Crystal, as any fule kno.) What the intercourse are you doing on that page, Sir, when you could instead be adding your wit 'n' wisdom to this? -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Belated thanks!


 * I was so cheered, I've just now bought myself a watch on a certain auction site (not fleabay). It cost over &yen;5,000 too. But under &yen;6,000. (And it doesn't even start to resemble a Rolex, I'm happy to say.)


 * The other day I bought myself something called Begin tokei (or similar): a watchporn magazine. The price of the average bauble on display is perhaps &yen;400,000. This is a very, very strange world of people who are grotesquely rich, desperately "upward-aspiring", insane, or some combination thereof. It has considerable humor value, presumably unintended. Women are conspicuously absent. One watch in twenty or so is actually rather attractive; and I must concede that a superfluous watch, unlike a superfluous SUV, does little to fuck up the planet.


 * Hoary (whose lifetime total expenditure on watches must be well under &yen;50,000), 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

James Milner
You Opposed this articles nomination a while back due to it's prose. I wondered if you could give it another look when you can find the time. Would it be worth re-nominating. Buc (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok that's great, thanks. Do you think you could do the rest of the article when you can find the time? Buc (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: The "style guide for the style guide" should not mandate autoformatting
At [] I suggested: The "style guide for the style guide" should not mandate autoformatting.

Some parts of the MoS have date links and others do not. It is all a bit random and unrelated to the purpose of the guide. What do you think? Lightmouse (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lutoslawski Symphony 3 excerpt.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Lutoslawski Symphony 3 excerpt.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, happy new year. Yes, the fair use rationale still referred to Witold Lutosławski and the image is not used there any more, so the bot was correct.  I changed the fair use rationale to refer to the article where the image is used.  I hope this solves the problem.  Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 09:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Bowie
Hi Tony. Malleus Fatuarum has helped me with a bit of copyediting on the Jim Bowie article, and I think I've addressed the other issues that you brought up at its FA candidacy. If you have time, could you revisit the article and see if you it is now in a state that you could support? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ian Svenonius FAC
Thanks very much for your comments at the Ian Svenonius FAC. I believe I've addressed most of your concerns, though some of your comments were a bit confusing, so I asked for clarification on a few of them. I also did my best to give the article a good copyedit, but I imagine alot of these minor language things would require a second set of eyes to notice. Anyways, I was hoping you could give the article's nomination another look, and update your comments however you see fit. Thanks again! Drewcifer (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for withdrawing your oppose vote. At the risk of pressing the issue, however, is there anything I could do to gain your support for the nomination?  In this nomination alone, this would be the second time somebody withdrew their oppose vote, but didn't support.  I feel like the article is very close to FA quality, and I'd like very much to get it over the hump.  So, if there's anything else I can do, please let me know.  Thanks again. Drewcifer (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Preuss School
Back in November, following your inability to look at The Preuss School UCSD both SandyGeorgia and Unimaginative Username saw my comments and were able to make suggestions. I have since been able to implement, however, it would seem both users are now on wikibreaks. If you are still too busy it is understandable, but if not I would really appreciate it if you could have a look at it. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk  21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ships
Tony, I have a few things to say. If I'm honest, I actually see the need to move to a gender-neutral system, especially given that Lloyds do. That being said, the manner in which you decided to start your crusade is abhorrent. First off, insulting anyone with some semblance of tradition, is really quite unneccessary. Second, using an FAC as a platform for this outburst is disrespectful to the nominator. There are plenty of forums for your discussion, namely WP:MILHIST, WP:SHIPS or WP:MARITIME not to mention the myriad of MOS pages. I find your recent actions shocking to say the least. Woody (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to "hide" it but decided it might inflame the situation given the nature of my involvement. Would you object to its archiving? Woody (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Take that as a no then. Are any of your rebuttals helpful to the article or relevant to the nom. Once again, another forum is needed for this, even if it is the nom talk page. In reply to your statement about being shocked that it has turned personal, please read your comment from the perspective of anyone who knows anything about nautical terms. With the sentence "Is it a metaphor for what boys in uniforms see themselves as controlling, riding, fucking?" you were incredibly offensive. If you cannot see that, then your judgement is severely lacking. Woody (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you actually cared for that article, then a more simple statement without the diatribe would have sufficed. Something along the lines of:


 * Notice the lack of personal slurs, diatribes, abuse, and needless unhelpful aggravation Tony. Woody (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope that the Milhist discussion can end this thing once and for all but I must bring up something. "In a way, it was necessary to expose the emotional aspect of this aspect." It really wasn't. You could have just said, I know it is emotional on both sides. You made a lot of needless drama with you comment. A simple request for discussion would really have sufficed, though hindsight really is a wonderful thing. Let us put it behind us now, and try and improve the article. What do you think about the article? Woody (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you comment at…
Featured article candidates/Greatest Hits (Lost) again, please? – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools.  My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A peace offering
Please accept my apology for my poorly phrased 'vitriol' comment that has clearly given offense. It was intended as a characterization of the entire thread, in which a lot of people have said things in a regrettable fashion. I should not have tacked those last two sentences onto a paragraph beginning with "Tony," without clarifying that they were addressed to the entire audience. I'm sorry. Maralia (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
I wish to inform you that I am not at all happy that you have turned my FAC into a forum for your public service announcement. Having said that, I will reluctantly concede a point that the issue should be settled once and for all, so here you go: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. My argument and your argument have been (very simplistically) summed up there, and as the title suggests, I seek and ammendment to the MILHIST MoS to settle this once and for all. As a gesture of fairiness and of good faith, I leave the link to the discuss here directly and your talk page since you were the first to bring the issue up. I wish you luck with your argument in the forum, no matter how it turns up. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not your FAC page, it's not your article, and I haven't yet made a "public service announcement" about sexist language. It's quite a good article, BTW. Tony   (talk)  13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By "mine" I mean its my responibility as the nominator of the article to adress the the concerns brought up with objects and/or comments in accordance with the FAC guidelines. In no way should "mine" be construed as me claiming the article for myself, that goes against policy since no contributer here can own an article. As for the "public service announcement", I mean bring the issue up directly on the FAC instead of a MoS related talk page; although having taken a step back from the issue just a little I can say that my "public service announcement" comment was just a little over the line. For that, I apologize. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1988 Atlantic hurricane season FAC
Hi there tony. You left comments about the grammar and formatting in the above article. This article has been nominated to the League of Copyeditors but nothing has come of it as of yet. I have throughly gone over this article in the best of my capacity and i was wondering whether you'd be willing to see if i have met your suggestions as much as possible and whether you feel you are now able to support this nomination and if not what further problems you see in the article, as i do not want this nomination to become stagnant. Thank you for your time Seddon69 (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article received a second copy edit to remove excess comma's. I was wondering if you could possibly take another look at the article to see whether it is FAC ready. Seddon69 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Archie Jackson FA
Hi Tony. I believe I have addressed your concerns left at the FAC page for the above article. If you wouldn't mind, could you take another look and let me know if you have any more suggestions. Thanks for your comments, they have improved the article immensely. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion
 –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 09:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit request
The Simpsons Movie, I'm hopful I can get this to FA status. Thanks in advance. Buc (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Las Meninas
Tony, sorry I didn't thank you for the copy edit on the painting article earlier. It was very gratifying and much appreciated. Best Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never left. I had a hissy fit that lasted less than 48 hrs. ;-) Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS
Hi Tony. Hmmnn, I forgot about Canada. There's no fixed data on the usage style of the format, but I do know that in the EU, the DD/MM format is preferred in short form.

In India, a date such as 06/05 is always in DD/MM format. In the long form, for example 17 December is popular, but December 17 is also common, especially by media publications such as the Times of India.

As far as the Commonwealth being an arcane institution, and editors unwilling to categorise themselves under this umbrella; that would be unnecessary as such an affiliation is done at the political level, not user level.

Yeah, we can add the examples. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

final period.
Well, the example is clearly a fragment and does not need a period, and should be exercised by all editors. To MOS, the guide is clear that periods are only used after a full sentence; but why they asked about it? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Remember that editors in the Wikipedia community emanates from different regions in this world bearing different "minds". Well, that would be a challenge for MoS. The guide should not overlook the very minute details of grammatical issues, and that should have a wider effect to editors. Its up to you if you will drop a message one-by-one to all editors saying what you want to say about the proper MoS. That would be a grueling task. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly Tony. Editors should follow MoS if they want to pass FAC. On the other hand, MoS should have an effect to editors, like what you've said widespread breaching/ignorance. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Prairie Avenue
In the first Prairie Avenue FAC you mentioned I need to get fresh eyes to copy edit it. I have finally gotten the help I needed in this regard at Talk:Prairie Avenue. I have also greatly improved the article with thousands of new great words (if a picture is worth a thousand words). What do you think about the articles current viability for FA now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To take a photo and send to the others....
Meetup/Sydney/January 2008 - could be fun for a while...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A path to harmony?
Hey Tony,

You and I have had a pretty good relationship so far, when we've met up here in Wikipedia, and I'm hoping that we can Talk now about something more difficult than we've discussed in the past. I think everyone here respects and agrees with your commitment to good writing and clear expositions for the average reader. I totally agree with you that we shouldn't write only for scholars, since hey! they don't need us anyway to tell them their business. ;)

I'm writing because I'm thinking that you might have formed a mistaken impression of Awadewit's motives. I don't think that she's trying to make a end run around the requirements for clear, accessible and brilliant prose, or that she's failed to appreciate the criteria for Featured Articles. My sense is just that she has a different interpretation of those criteria, and honestly believes that she's living up to them. If you agree with that, then the next step forward for you would seem to be gentle persuasion, trying to convince her (and others) to change the article and their standards to match yours more closely. And true to that old saying of Solomon, you might find that easier with softer words than with imperatives; sometimes the quiet voice of reason gets lost in a hurly-burly, no? But soft, patient water can wear away stones. :)

Even if you don't agree with me that Awadewit deserves the benefit of the doubt, I think it might be helpful and more efficient for everyone to keep the debate focused on the material and not on the people, don't you agree? No need to provoke commentary on what she or you did/said, when there's work to be done, eh? It can't be very agreeable to anyone, I'm sure, and both of you might accidentally come across to others differently than you might wish or imagine. Really, let me convince you that it works best for you to highlight your professional concern for the article and its improvement, esp. your concern for its intelligibility to the average reader. If the debate seems as though it's just a personal conflict, it might be ignored; I fear that we'd be impoverished of your insights, and you of your chance to improve the article. Earnestly and hopefully, Willow (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Winston Churchill
I was wondering, when you have time, if you could help out with Winston Churchill. We're trying to get this article about a historical figure to featured article. Awadewit says you're excellent at reducing redundancies and shortening an article, and any assistance that you can give, whether it is by editing or giving advice on Talk:Winston Churchill would be much appreciated. I understand if you feel that the project might be too time-consuming, or if you are unwilling to work on it for a number of other reasons, but please reply here with the decision. Cheers. &mdash;  DarkFalls talk 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

MoS examples
Just a swift note to say how much I appreciate your sometimes slightly off-the-wall usage examples :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Russia FAC suggestions
Hi, I fixed what I could but I still have some problems


 * What is "Russia proper"? It's right up at the start of the second sentence, and we're still wondering.
 * Complicated sentence: "At 17,075,400 square kilometres (6,592,800 sq mi) and with 142 million people, Russia is by far the largest country in the world, covering more than one-eighth of the Earth’s land area, and ninth-largest by population."—Deal with pop. first, then area, or it will cause the readers to hiccough. All of these hyphenated fractions need to be eased to "an eighth", etc. See MOS.
 * I believe I removed the hyphenated fractions correctly but I'm a bit puzzled about how to rewrite this sentence


 * ""At 17,075,400 square kilometres (6,592,800 sq mi), Russia is by far the largest country in the world, covering more than an eighth of the Earth’s land area; with 142 million people, it is the ninth-largest by population." Tony  (talk)  13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Extends across 40% of Europe? Just where is the eastern boundary? If it's not widely accepted, this is not appropriate, at least without an explicit rider on the spot.
 * Its eastern border is defined by the Ural mountains and in the south it is defined by the border with Kazakhstan.


 * Whose opinion is that? Tony   (talk)  13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Britannica's, (see subtext of first search result-The mountains have served to mark the traditional boundary between Europe and Asia.


 * "possesses", then "has". Surely "has" is good enough, twice.
 * "The nation's history begins with that of the East Slavs. The Slavs emerged"—"BeGAN".
 * Do you mean change, "The Slavs emerged" to "The Slavs began"?


 * No, change "begins" to "began". Tony   (talk)  13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Greatly" twice; the first one could be removed.
 * Twice in the lead or twice in the article? I can only see one "greatly" in the lead. Do you suggest removing it from here - By the 18th century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow had greatly expanded through conquest?


 * No, the first occurrence can go. Tony  (talk)  13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I interpreted that to mean to remove it from here - By the 18th century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow had greatly expanded through conquest.


 * "Russia established worldwide power and influence from the times of the Russian Empire to being the preeminent constituent of the Soviet Union, the world's first and largest Communist state, and can boast a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences.[6]" Two quite different ideas jammed into the one sentence. "Being" is a problem—the grammar is inconsistent. "Can" begs a question. "Constituent" isn't the prettiest word you could use.
 * What other word do you suggest for "Constituent"? I changed it to Russia established worldwide power and influence from the times of the Russian Empire to being the preeminent constituent of the Soviet Union, the world's first and largest Communist state. The nation can boast a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences.  - I'm puzzled about what to do with "being" and "can" (note: Russia can boast a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences is how Encyclopaedia Britannica wrote this)
 * You're copying Britannica? Not a good idea unless you can possibly help it. I don't like B's wording, anyway, and does the citation cover both points or just one of them?


 * I don't understand if you mean does the citation cover both "arts" and "sciences" or does it cover both of those sentences. It covers both the arts and sciences statement, not both sentences. Is this better? - Russia established worldwide power and influence from the times of the Russian Empire to being the preeminent constituent of the Soviet Union, the world's first and largest Communist state; the nation has a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences.


 * "and other global organizations"—A bit lame; every country is a member of global organisations; consider removing the clause.

Cheers.--Miyokan (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I really can't help you to fix up the whole article, and I think it's not FA material. Tony  (talk)  13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It won't pass FA anyway, I'm just concerned with improving the article.--Miyokan (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)